Mimesis and Understanding: An Interpretation of Aristotle's Poetics 4.

1448B4-19
Author(s): Stavros Tsitsiridis
Source: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Dec., 2005), pp. 435-446
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4493348 .
Accessed: 04/03/2014 12:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ClassicalQuarterly
55.2 435-446(2005)Printed
in GreatBritain

doi:10.1093/cq/bmi041

435

MIMESIS AND UNDERSTANDING: AN

INTERPRETATION OF ARISTOTLE'S POETICS
4. 1448B4-19*
Thestructure
ofthefirst
ofthePoetics,before
Aristotle
embarks
onthedischapters
cussionoftragedy
is clearenough:
1-3 setforth
a triple
classification
proper,
chapters
of thekindsof mimesis,
based on thePlatonicmethodof
(in thiscase
3LalpEot
to
the
the
and
the
modes
of
mimesis
while
means, object,
according
respectively),
4 and 5 discusstheoriginsand thedevelopment
of themajorpoetical
chapters
Morespecifically,
thefirst
4 (a chapter
'derinteressantesten,
partofchapter
genres.1
aberauch schwierigsten
derPoetik',as Gudemanhas observed)
gehaltsreichsten,
thetwounderlying
causesof poetry:
towards
expounds
(i) man'snatural
tendency
mimesisand (ii) his innateaffection
forrhythm
and harmony.2
Speakingof the
naturalinstinct
of mimesis,Aristotle
stressesfromtheoutsetthatthisconstitutes
man'sdistinctive
whichsetshimapartfromall otherspecies:manis since
feature,
themimetic
andhedevelopshisearliest
underearlychildhood
beingpar excellence,
Aristotle
thenproceeds
tounderline
a secondfeature
that
standing
through
mimesis.3
humansfromotheranimals:'all humansfindpleasurein mimetic
distinguishes
as follows(1448b12):
objects'.Atthispointhe continues
Te
apW
ov t'onv Uov
bgOuEv,
ElKova
rAdT'
'avlgauvov T(vaivepyowv.
'7Tt
MqThE
yperal'trmAvpuam
aTL
rovtV
~ciaAtra77KpL/w/IpvaS xagPOE
otov
t&ol7pwv TE oppasdTWv
Kat
OEwpoOv7Er,
rOTtLXorrWV
SE

TaS-

VEKpwV.

a'ttov

Kat

TOTOVU,

7TL

avOavEtv

oV~ tovov

&AAoLg
AI'7T fpaxvKowWvogUwaavTO.
6oiwsog,AA'

aptay

Kal
?ptAoao`potg
7St7TOV
UAAaL
"rois
TpToVTO xatpOvaL
dTaSEIKOvas
OPCOvTES,

rotf

an 'empirical
verification' Trov
ofthefactthatthepleasure
feltin
presents
(/&
,pywv)
imitated
is universal:
mimetic
workswithanunpleasant
content
stilloffer
things
pleaownright,
notonlyonaccount
oftheir
sure,andthisintheir
Second,he
workmanship.
underscores
thenatural
causewhichexplains
boththepleasure
drawnfrom
imitations
* I wishtoexpress
toA. Schmitt,
V. Liapis,andTh.K. Stephanopoulos,
who
mygratitude
readanearlier
draft
ofthispaperandoffered
a number
ofusefulcomments.
Thanksarealsodue

totheanonymous
whosecareful
comments
thispaper.
referee,
improved
See F. Solmsen,'Originsandmethods
ofAristotle's
Poetics',
CQ 29 (1935),196-200.
2 Forthesecond
zuAristoteles'
Poetik
andBerlin,
'cause',seeJ.Vahlen,
Beitrdge
(Leipzig
andLeipzig,
1914),10-11;A. Gudeman,
(Berlin
HEpt
1934),ad48b8;
Aristoteles.
7ToLIrq/TKS
D. de Montmollin,
La Poetique
d'Aristote
(Neuchatel,
1951),32-34;G. F. Else,Aristotle's
Poetics:TheArgument
Poetics
MA,1957),127-30;D. W. Lucas,Aristotle:
(Cambridge,
as
(Oxford,
1968),ad 48b22.Fora different
inmimesis
interpretation
(thenatural
pleasure
thesecond'cause'),see A. Rostagni,
Aristotele:
Poetica(Turin,
19452[19271]),
ad loc.;
J. Sykutris,A4pwtroT"AovS
THEpt7To0q1TLKS, AKa8r&lIa A40q7vwv,'EAA-qv.
BtLA.2 (Athens,1937),

ad loc.; S. Halliwell,
Aristotle's
Poetics(London,1986),70-71.
3 Forlearning
see alsoH. Koller,Die MimesisinderAntike
mimesis,
through
(Bern,1954),
57-63. Concerning
themimesis
ofchildren,
S. Halliwell,
TheAesthetics
ofMimesis
(Princeton
andOxford,
tobe thinking
2002),153n. 4, and178,takesAristotle
'mainlyofchildren's
play
acting'(on thispointcf.Pol. 7.17.1336a33-34).
ClassicalQuarterly
55.2 ( TheClassicalAssociation
reserved
2005;all rights

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

436

STAVROS TSITSIRIDIS

andthefact(onethathehadmentioned
thatmanlearnsduring
thefirst
earlier)
stages
Inaddition
tothesharp'disproportion'
ofhislifebyimitating.4
observed
inthe
(Else)
sectiononthetwocausesofpoetry--a
from
thelongparenthdisproportion
resulting
esis devotedto theexplanation
ofthefirst
cause(48b12-19:at''rov... a-lmav),
but,
on learning
mimesis(48b6-8: Kal
also, fromAristotle's
priorcomment
through
above-mentioned
atleastinitssecond
passageraises,
Tovnw ... rTS
rapd;c-as)5--the
of
on
matters
of
and
In
a
series
further
questions
understanding interpretation.
part,
whensomeoneobservesan image?WhatprewhatexactlydoesvtavOvEtw
consist,
meaninthiscase?Whyis itperceived
as a necessary
ciselydoes uvAAoy5EacOaL
preforsomeonetohaveseenthedepicted
objectbefore
requisite
(7rpoEwpaKg)?Finally,
iftheconcrete
'mostaccurate
images'ofthe
examplehasto do withpainting-the
it
in
certain
this
case
as well,we
animals
and
render
almost
'vilest
that,
corpses'
rather
are dealingwithimagesof thesamekind-is thechoiceof painting
than
other
art
accidental?
any
entirely
If
Letusbeginfrom
ourlastquestion,
theonethatseemstobe theeasiesttoanswer.
intheabovepassageitis indeedpainting
thatAristotle
hasinmind-thetermE1KWV
is thesimplest
and most
is becausepainting
does notmakethisa certainty-this
arts:becauseof its use of figures
characteristic
formamongtherepresentational
morethananyotherformofrepresentation,
andcolours,
reality
painting
approaches
time[PMG
from
anditis forthisreasonthat,
veryearlyon(atleastsinceSimonides's
toemphasize
inorder,
withpoetry,
things,
552]6), ithadbeencompared
amongother
In thePoeticstheparallelism
betweenpoetryand
thelatter'simitative
character.
thattherepetitive
It is veryprobable
charoccursno lessthaneighttimes.7
painting
I
that
this
is
even
believe
more
Platonic
acterofthisparallelism
betrays
influence.8
4
from
where
mimesis's
in
the
under
discussion,
cognitive
chapter
probable
passage
valueis discussed.9
to
objectschangeaccording
Why,on theotherhand,do theexamplesofdepicted
thediscussion
focuseson thepleasurederivedfromtheimitated
whether
objectsin
as thecauseofpleasure?Whydo we havein theformer
or fromlearning
general,
is a
or VEKpOVs,whilein thelattertheobjectof depiction
case Oqpta LT9tO1TraTa
humanbeing?One would have to admit,of course,that'vilestanimals'or
Still,in the
examplesof recognition.
'corpses'wouldbyno meansbe appropriate
fromgivinganyspecificexample
lattercase Aristotle
couldhavesimplyrefrained
himselfwith a neutral Voiro KEEVO,as he does in
whatsoever,
contenting
Thisis, in anycase,whatone mighthaveexpected
Rhetoric's
parallelpassage.10
Forthephrase
aittov ? KaLroTrov, seeElse(n.2), 128-9.
s Cf.Montmollin
(n.2),34-5;Else(n.2), 127.

6 Fora different
andOxford,
TheOrigins
view,seeA. Ford,
2002),
(Princeton
ofCriticism
96-8.
ad47a18andinHalliwell
inGudeman
(n.2),53n. 11,124n.27.
7 Seethepassages
8 SeeHalliwell
(n.2), 123-4.
9 Itis wellknown
from
inhisworks
criticized
Platohadsharply
that
(particularly
painting
PlatoandGreek
seeE. C.Keuls,
theRepublic
(Leiden
1978),33-47,118Painting
onwards);
to
artandas suchis often
mimetic
is forPlatothemostcharacteristic
25.Painting
compared

of mimesis
poetry(Cra. 423D,Resp.597E,598C,601A,603B,Plt. 306D). Theparallelism

indifferent
directions
around
which
canbeheldandturned
toa mirror
(Resp.10.596D)also
refers
topainting.

10 Rhet.
i artv
OTv70r70OEKEWVO,
1.11.
1371b9:
TLUUPOaLVEL.
/tavOaVELV
UISTE
iAAad
ovAAoytatuds

'Manerwartet
adPoet.1448b17:
70T70EKEivo,
wasauchdieobenzitierte,
Cf.Gudeman
ganz
involviert
eine
Masculinum
denn
Rhetorik
das
aus
der
Stelle
iiberlieferte
bestitigt,
ihnliche
AlsoLucasad loc.: 'themasc.is
des Gedankens.'
nichtzu motivierende
Einschriinkung
Ti
after
strange
E.'Karov'.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MIMESIS

AND UNDERSTANDING

437

afterthephraseuvAAoy?EaoOal
7 iEKacTOV. The factthatAristotletakesa humanindi-

as wellas hisdifferentiation
vidualas an exampleoftheinference
the
from
process,
parallelRhetoricpassage,cannotbe insignificant,
especiallyif combinedwith
reference
toportrait-painters
Aristotle's
pic(EZKovoyp(po0L) in 1454b9.Theportrait,
thewholehumanbeing,is
torialor sculptural,
whichin classicalantiquity
depicted
theartform
wherethedepiction
oftheindividual
characteristics
of
par excellence
It can, therefore,
be offered
a certainpersonis attempted."1
as an exampleof
characteristics
are represented.
mimesisin whichdistinct
This,as we shall see,
be ofsomesignificance.
might
in thePoeticspassageunderdiscussion
Thereis also,however,
thatis
something
absentfromtheparallelRhetoric
passageand whichmeritsseriousconsideration.
to commonfolkwhoaresetapartfromthephilosophers
Thisis thereference
and
are inferior
to themas faras theirintellectual
capacitiesare concerned
(JAA'E'rt
Aristotle'ssinglingout of common

[sc. T70o

fpaXbKoLvwvojtlv

CtavOvELv]).12
aTroi,
folkin hisdiscussion
oftherecognition
without
somepoint
processcan be neither
norwithout
somegrounding
onempirical
Ourcommon
observation.
everyday
experithataveragepeoplelooking
encesuggests
atphotographs
willreactina specialwayif
well-known
inthem.Theirreaction
is evenmoremarked
when
persons
theyrecognize
havefadedaway:themoredemanding
theymanagetomakeoutfaceswhosefeatures
therecognition
thepleasurederivedfromits successful
conprocess,thegreater
clusion.Aristotle's
formulation
this:namelythatwe are dealing
aimsat stressing
herewithan elementary
onethatwe canobserveeveninordinary
cognitive
process,
are
not
of
who
intellectual
possessed particular
people
capacities.
Wemaynowproceedtoexamine,
ingreater
detail,theverysamecognitive
process

describedin chapter4:
otov 'OTLoVrogEKELvo.
7Too70

KEVO0,

TE

OEcWpovbva
/av8OcvELvKaalavAAoytEaOarTE"KaUTov,
avjpalvEL
From
theparallel
E"UTVO"T
passageinRhetoric
(avAAoytLot
it becomesclear
thatin this
7

tatVdVELV

GVTULPCtVEt)

process

denotesthe result.Leaving aside

logicallyprecedeswhile tlavcaveLv
ovAAoyiEoUa6
the meaning of
for the moment,there can be little doubt that
ovAAoy,[EaOat
ratherthan 'leaming'.13 At any rate,the
/CavwOcvEVhere denotes 'understanding'

" See E. Voutiras,

Studien
zurInterpretation
undStilgriechischer
Portrdts
des5. undfriihen
4. Jahrhunderts
wereon display:we
(Diss. Bonn,1980),19ff.Sometimes
pictorial
portraits
thatSophocleswas depicted(yEyp~ipOat)
in theStoaPoikileplaying
the
know,forexample,
lyre(Soph. Vita5=T 1, 25 Radt;see thediscussionin L. Sechan,Etudessur la tragedie

grecque [Paris, 1926], 194ff.).On 'informalsketches',see G. Richter,The Portraitsof the

Greeks 1 (London, 1965), 18. In relationto Poet. 1454b9 (T70o
k
yalobs EtKovoypa<povs),see
Voutiras, 34. Of course, El'K V is not applied to portraitsonly, as is made clear from
1448b11; see also Halliwell (n. 3), 183.
12 Thephrase /tpaXv
meansingeneral'a little
way,a little'(LSJs.v. rtnC.I.2c,cf.Thuc.
Eri
referhereto a phase ofa man's lifetime,
as W. Kullmann,Aristotelesunddie
1.118.2). It cannot

moderne
WhatAristotle
to
refers
Wissenschaft
1998),341-2, suggests.
(Stuttgart,
principally
hereis learning,
notto mimesis,
hispointbeing(to mymind)thatordinary
menparticipate
initonlytoa limited
thatis,tothedegreethatlearning
is easilyandeffortlessly
extent,
acquired
(cf. Rhet.3.10. 1410b10).
mimesis
andhumanunderstanding',
in 0. Andersen
13 Halliwellinhisarticle'Aristotelian
and J.Haarberg(edd.), MakingSense ofAristotle:Essays in Poetics (London,2001), 92 ff.,and
(n. 3), 201, pointsout thattavO~ivevmightimplybothmeaningsat the same time.But, since

Aristotle
thetwomeanings
between
oftheverb(Soph.El.
(i) is wellawareofthedifference
with
4.165b33),and(ii) usestheverbatthesametimehereandin a passageoftheRhetoric
reference
to a basicandverygeneralcognitive
process,itis morepossibleto believethathe
usestheverbhereinthesense'understanding'
Fortheprimary
mean(cf.Met.A 1.980blff.).

den Begriff
ings as well as thesemanticevolutionoftavO66vEv,see B. Snell,Die Ausdriickefiir
des Wissensin der vorplatonischen
Philosophie(Berlin, 1924), 72-81.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

438

STAVROS

TSITSIRIDIS

senseof
is bynomeansa technical
Itis
assumes.14
one,as Montmollin
ovAAoyLEaOaL
usedhere
ina general
sensetodenote'comprehend
after
But
even
thinking',
'infer'.15
remains
ofwhatwearetomakeofthispassage.Itis stillunclearwhat
so,thequestion
itis thatthecommon
man'comprehends
andinfers'
herecognizes
whenever
exactly
thatthefigure
in a portrait
is a specific,
familiar
represented
person,one he 'has
alreadyseen'.
Theproblem
was first
statedin 1789byTwiningin his annotated
editionofthe
Poetics.According
to Twining,
Aristotle's
wordsimply'rude'and 'unskilful'
specbut'evenwithrespect
theprinciple
to them,
seemsscarcely
tators,
applicablebutto
andindividual
suchas maynotbe instantly
But
resemblances,
portraits,
recognized'.
evenso Aristotle's
wordsfailtoyieldsatisfactory
sense:'wherethereis notevena
or doubt,I do notsee howanyinformation
can be said to
momentary
ignorance,
be acquiredby thespectator'.16SinceAristotle's
wordsdo notseemto referto
inartistic
is preciselythereference
to ELK6vas 'dpALcrrTa
portraits-it
'KpLgCO)E'VaS
7s
thatfavours
theexactlyoppositeinterpretation-,Twining's
seemto be
objections
highlypertinent.
Theproblem
hasbeentheobjectofextensive
eversince,andmanyother
discussion
been
that
have
in
this
is
added,namely
interpretations
particular
passageAristotle
to pleasureas thenatural
outcomeof a cognitive
referring
processwhichrestson
the'discovery
orrecognition
on ourpartofthemeaning
ofthepicture';17
or,even
thatthepleasureof mimesisconsistsin theunderstanding
of a playin its
further,
broadest
sense(intherealistic
reconstruction
ofitsdetails,initspsychological
penin
of
the
its
moralormetaphysical
etration, discovery deeper,
underlying
meaning);18
or thatthepleasureofrecognition
we aredealingwithheredoesnotcoincidewith
elevatedaestheticgratification,
since the reference
'appearsto be ratherto the
of likenessthanto trueaesthetic
or thatthe
popularappreciation
enjoyment';19
us not witha wholeobject(e.g.
pictureis a kindof concept,whichpresents
features
of it (e.g. 'features-of-cow');20
'cow'), butwithsomebasicor underlying
ofrecognizing
a certain
orthatitis nota question
therecognizing
personbutrather
14Montmollin
thattheverbis usedhere'avecle sensde faireunsyllo(n.2), 35,presumes

butas in16.1455a4,
13and24.1460a20).
But
(vraioufaux)'(viz.notas in25.1461b2,
gisme

or implied,
from
whicha
thiswouldrequire
thattherebe morethanoneproposition,
present
thesyllogistic
conclusion
wouldensue.Additionally,
questneverleads(as here)totheparticular,individual
being,butonlyto individual
species(man,apple,tree,andso on).
s.v.I do notagreewithE. Belfiore's
15 Cf.LSJs.v.I; Bonitz,
IndexAristotelicus
interpretawithseeing
tionofOEwpoivrES
theoriaofimagesas imitations
(1448b11):'Poetics4 contrasts
imagesas objectshavingcertainshapesandcolors.We see uglyshapesand colors,butby
theimitation
welearnandreasonabouta representational
between
meansoftheoria
relationship
Theoriais nonpractical'
andtheobjectimitated.
1992],67).As a
(TragicPleasures[Princeton,
withe.g.
ruletheverbOEWopE~v

lKo vas,

rvp8ctvras(cf.Poet. 1452a9) as itsobjectmeans

ypaps,
in
noreasonwhytheverbshouldnothavethismeaning
nomorethan'view','lookat',andI see
thiscase as well.
16 Th.Twining,
onPoetry1 (London,18122),284 (I wasunfortunately
Aristotle's
Treatise
Similarobjections
areexpressed
unableto see thefirst
edition;theitalicsareTwining's).
by
is inadequate.
Whenwe havelearnt
Lucas in his commentary
(ad 48b13):'The explanation
we havenotlearnt
whatalreadyfamiliar
much.'
thinga picture
represents
ontheArtofPoetry
Aristotle
17 I. Bywater,
(Oxford,
1909),ad 48b16.Forthisinterpretation
toProbl.19.5.918a3.
refers
Bywater
(n. 2), *80-*81.
18 J.Sykutris
19S. H. Butcher,
andFineArt(London,19074),201-2.
Aristotle's
Theory
ofPoetry
20 J.M. Redfield,
Natureand Culturein theIliad: TheTragedy
ofHector(Chicagoand
and J.Lallot,Aristote:
La
London1975),52-55. For a similarview,see R. Dupont-Roc
Poetique(Paris,1980),ch.4 n. 3.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MIMESIS

AND UNDERSTANDING

439

thegenusto whichtheparticular
or
personbelongs('thathe is "thatkindof creature",
are eitherunsa... "Thatis a So-and-So" ).21 But theaforementioned
interpretations
or theydo notremoveall the difficulties.
tisfactory,
Special referencemust,however,be made to two more exhaustiveapproaches.
Sifakisassumesin thispassage thatwe are dealingwitha 'kind of "soft"reasoning'
whichis closelyakinto EvOtBV~Lta:
'Because theartisthas renderedhis subjectin universal terms,we recognizein the representation
an instanceof the katholou,or a
variantof a generaltype,and such a recognitionprovidesa clue to understanding
thecharacterof therepresented
subject,beingregarded,as it were,againsttheback'
groundofthekatholou.'22Accordingto him,theinference
o[o70 KEZVOS does notconstitutea judgementon the identityof the depictedperson,but refersto the deeper
charactertraitsof the representedperson. For example, in the case of Zeus's
marblestatueby Pheidias,we could inferthatthe statue'shows whatZeus is really
like,the statuebeinghis ideal image'.
Halliwell, on the otherhand, argues thatthe pleasureto which Aristotlerefers
derives fromthe recognitionand the understandingof the likenesses (in other
words,the spectatorrealizes fromthe beginningthathere we have mimesis),but
thatone mustnot therefore
assume thatwhatAristotlehas in mindare themimetic
works as mere representations
of already familiar,particularobjects: 'When we
theways in whichpossible
appreciatemimeticworks,we recognizeand understand
featuresof realityare intentionally
signifiedin them.'23Accordingto Halliwell,the
pleasureof knowledgethatis derivedfrommimesismust,at least in thecase of dramaticpoetry,be associatedwiththeknowledgeof universalswhichis mentionedin
mustbe one majorspecies of,the
'mustinstantiate,
chapter9. Tragedy'solKEca 8ov75
in
defined
4'.24
genericpleasure
Chapter
Both Sifakisand Halliwellaretrying
to connectchapter4 withchapter9, considermusteitherbe contained
ingthat,sincethattragedyis mimesis,tragedy'solKEla
1ovr5 thatmimesisoffers.At
in or coincidewiththepleasurederivedfromtheknowledge
firstsight,such an assumptionappearsto be unproblematic.
But could we presume
thatAristotlewriteschapter4 havingin mindtragedyin particularand presupposing
could
everythinghe says about KaO6Aovin chapter9? Even more importantly,
we assume that, according to Aristotle,any mimema (also an EIKOJV
u'OdV ara
21

G. F. Else (n.2), 131-2. However,

inordertosupport
thisinterpretation
Else is forced
to

alterthetext
Forthisconjecture(whichM. C. Nussbaum,
insteadof ov'ros
EKEZVO
E'KEL.
(o,roS
The Fragility
2001 ], 388, apparently
also adopts)see R. G.
of Goodness[Cambridge,

C. Levens,JHS 81 (1961), 190. Gudemanhad conjectured

he did notadoptit in
(although

the text) 70o70o

(cf. above n. 10), using the Rhetoric'sparallel passage in supportof

his proposal.D. KEVO

Gallop,'Animalsin thePoetics',OSAP 8 (1990), 168,suggestsan even
that'whatAristotle
hasinmindis nottheidentification
greater
changetothetext,considering
ofthesubjectof a humanlikeness('thatis so-and-so'),
buttherecognition
of eachelement
withina complexdiagramor replicaas representing
a corresponding
partof a livingthing
andthelearning
inference
of generaltruths
aboutlivingthings
('thatis thekidney'),
through
oftherelevant
is', thatis,whatitisforandhowitworks).
type('whatthekidney
22

G. M. Sifakis,Aristotleon theFunctionofTragicPoetry(Herakleion,2001), 50 (Sifakis's

wasfirst
inJ.Bettsetal. [edd.],StudiesinHonourofT B. L. Webster
interpretation
published
[Bristol,
1986],1,211-22).
23 S. Halliwell,
andEmotion
inAristotle's
'Pleasure,
Poetics',inA. O. Rorty
Understanding,
Poetics(Princeton,
(ed.),EssaysonAristotle's
1992),247; also id. (n. 3), 189;cf.id. (n. 13),
102: 'It is, then,after
thatAristotle's
a mimetic
all,unproblematic
exampleofunderstanding
a particular:
in
imageinPoetics4 shouldbe a case ofidentifying
understanding
particulars,
alltheir
. .. must
ofpoetry,
as intheapprocomplexity
playanimportant
partintheappreciation
sensitive
ofethicalissues.'
priately
24 Halliwell judgement
(n. 13),253.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STAVROS

440
W,7V
17KpLOtf3
versal

TSITSIRIDIS

of a person)presentsunisuch as, forexample,an ordinaryphotograph

theproper
of
is anadditional
this,there
problem:
Apartfrom
pleasure
qualities?
is not identicalwiththe pleasure
as Heathprovedverypersuasively,
tragedy,
thatcharacterizes
in chapter
described
4, sincethelatter(i) is notsomething
only
and(iii) failsto solvethe'paradoxoftragedy'.25
(ii) is purely
cognitive,
tragedy,
in orderto be able to graspaccurately
themeaning
ofthefirst
Therefore,
partof
to
this
and
we
must
confine
ourselves
4,
particular
passage
tryto
initially
chapter
with
the
of
his
rest
Aristotle's
words,
possiblyby drawingcomparisons
clarify
constitutes
themostappropriate
neither
thePoeticsnortheRhetoric
ceuvre.
Certainly,
issuethathasbeenraisedin
withregard
tothecardinal
sourceofAristotelian
thought
from
In order
thatresults
mimesis.
thispassage,namelytheissueoftheknowledge
considerations
thatmatter,
onemustdelveintoAristotle's
general
fullytounderstand
intwoverywellknown
as theyareexpressed
aboutthedifferent
stagesofknowledge,
and
the beginning
of the
the
last
of
the
Posterior
Analytics
chapter
passages:

Metaphysics.

triestoanswer
Aristotle
Inthemuch-discussed
Analytics,
passage2.19ofPosterior
Whathe
ofhowmanis ina position
toknowaboutthe'first
thequestion
principles'.
attains
his
natural
how
man
of
the
in
other
is
to
words, explain
knowledge
attempts,
himis whether
wepossessinborn
thatconcerns
world.Thebasicquestion
knowledge
Ifthelatter
is acquired.
istrue,
thenthe
orwhether
thatknowledge
ofthoseprinciples,
Aristotle
neither
alternative.
endorses
hastobe explained.
processofthisacquisition
thatwe
for'senseperception'
he says,possessan inborn
All livingcreatures,
ability
intheir
retain
a traceofthatperception
callaisthesis
(99b35).Someofthesecreatures
thatbelongtothefirst
do not.Thosecreatures
fall,inturn,
soul,whileothers
category
a recurrent
on theonehand,therearethosethatexperience
intotwosubcategories:
other
words
the
trace
of
that
of
(in
memory,
remaining
perception
presence
and arethuslead to rational
while,on theotherhand,thereare
thought,
mneme),
of many
in whichno suchprocesstakesplace.The accumulation
thosecreatures
in 'experience',
results
(100a5:
empeiria
imagesofthesameobjectinthememory,
LV-L
at yap 7roAAcd
tLa

E7TLrELpla

tua

From empeiria,namely 'all

'riv).
dptOtp4L
derivestheprinciple
oftechnical
to restin thesoul',
whichhas come
theuniversal
and science.Throughthesefourstages,accordingto the Aristotelian
dexterity
ofthefirst
totheknowledge
via induction,
manarrives,
prin'geneticepistemology',

ciples: s-Aov

r-t E5TaywyY yvwpL'Etv

avayKca'OV.

Ka'L yap

77 a't'aOrlat

7TO
rco

(100b3).26
ov
KaOO6
L-oLE-t
utterance
that'all
withthecelebrated
TheMetaphysics
begins,as is wellknown,

as Aristotle
desireto know'.Thisbecomesapparent,
menbynature
says,fromthe
ustodifferentiate
whichpermits
thatofsight,
lovewehaveforoursenses,particularly
All livingcreatures
are endowedwiththesame senses,butfew
amongthings.27
whileonlymancan attain'experience'
theabilityof 'memory',
command
through
ofexperience
there
ofthesameobject'.Whenfrom
manynotions
'manymemories
thenmen attaintechnicalknowledgeand
comes a singleuniversal
judgement,
25 M. Heath,
inAndersen
andHaarberg
ofTragedy',
'Aristotle
andthePleasures
(n. 13),
9-10.
26 Forthe
andallrelevant
which
theAristotelian
ofinterpretation
problems
passage
presents

Aristoteles
Werke3 I-II, Bd. II
see W. Detel,Aristoteles:
Posteriora,
Analytica
doxography,
(Berlin,1993),831-54.
27 As W. Jaeger,
hadalreadydevelAristotle
Aristoteles
(Berlin,19232),68-9 has shown,

inthefirst
two
inhisProtrepticus
theviewsheputsforth
fashion
opedina moredetailed
ofMetaphysics.
chapters

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MIMESIS

AND UNDERSTANDING

441

we encounter
thesametheory
science.In theMetaphysics,
ofknowledge
therefore,
we hadalreadyfoundin thePosterior
We
underline
two
must,
however,
Analytics.
thespecialroleof sightis highfirst,
pointsin thissecondAristotelian
exposition:
in regardto thedifferentiation
of objects;second,it becomes
lighted,
particularly
clearthatempeiria
to humansandto noneoftheother
entirely
pertains
exclusively
species.
Oneobserves,
ofmemory
thefunction
is veryimportthen,thatinbothreferences
to Aristotle,
ant.This,according
constitutes
theinterim
stagebetweensensepercepofthecapacityforabstraction.
tionandtheacquisition
Whatis worth
notingis that
memory
playsa veryimportant
partin thepassageunderdiscussionas well-a
factthat,untilnow,has notbeenpointedout.Notonlydoes 'KETVo~ in thephrase
tothepast,28
butitisalsoexplicitly
mentioned
that
nounderstandOVT70o KECVOQrefer
can
be
and
no
can
be
reached
conclusion
arrived
at
no pleaing
(and,consequently,
from
surecanbe derived
unlessonehasnotseenbefore
that
mimesis),
(rrpoEwpaK0s)
inthevisualworkofart.29
whichis represented
Thisis thecrucialpoint:onedoesnot
see thedepictedandtherealfacesimultaneously,
buttheveryfactthatthereis an
to takeplacemeansthata certain
identification
oftimehas elapsed(iXE-vos
amount
toa moreorlessdistant
refers
a
fact
that
most
enforces
theactivation
past),
certainly
To fullygrasp,then,thenature
ofmemory.
ofthecognitive
processimpliedin this
Aristotle's
ideasonmemory
andparticularly
passage,wemusttakeintoconsideration
on recollection.
Aristotle
his ideason thesetopicsin hisbriefbutinteresting
expounds
essayDe
memoria
et reminiscentia.30
Let us summarize
hisessentialpropositions:
memory,
as anyothermentalactivity,31
is basedon thefunction
ofphantasia,whichfrom
in thehumansoul.
sense-images
(aloalqxara)createsmentalimages(cpavrdaolara)
The mnemonic
withtherecognition
ofan objectin a painting
processis paralleled
or of an impression
made by a signet-ring.32
The distinctive
featureof those
imagesis thattheyarecopiesormodelsoftheobjectsthatmanhasalready
perceived
his sensesin thepast.33Maintaining
an object'srepresentation
in one's
through
the
at
same
conscious
that
this
is the
time,being
psychewhile,
representation
28 Forthephraseo70roAKELVO;,
onthispoint
seeHalliwell(n.3), 178n. 3 and189.I disagree
withtheinterpretation
ofSifakis([n.22],47-8 withn. 29) whodoesnotdistinguish
between
thisand thecolloquialuse of thephrase;forthisimportant
distinction
see P. T. Stevens,
38 (Wiesbaden, 1976), 31-2;
Colloquial Expressionsin Euripides,Hermes Einzelschriften

see also M. Schanz,Novae commentationes

Platonicae(Wiirzburg,
1871), 16; further
W. Havers,'Das Pronomen
derjener-Deixis
imGriechischen',
IF 19 (1906),esp.4-5.
29 Theprevailing
is whathappensinthecase ofmythical
Aristotle
would
question
persons.
haveaccepted,I assume,thatin thosecases theidentification
of thedepictedpersoncould
derivefromothersimilarpictures
or bydifferent
means(something
thatalso happensin the
case ofChristian
saints).
30 Belfiore
whotookthisparticular
work
49-50, is oneofthefewscholars
(n. 15),especially
intoconsideration
inherinterpretation
ofPoetics.
seriously
31 SeeMem.
De An.3.431a17(8t6obiTorTE
449b31(Kat VOEv oVK E"rtvIavEv Oav7r
aU
Trogs),
VOEL
431b2-8.
avTaordkEaros
4
Ovx(),
32aVEr
Picture-like:
Mem. 450b30 ('anTEp
Ev 77 ypaqpjcs ElKva OEWpEL,(cf. also 450b21, 23, 27,
451a2, 12, 16); impressionproduced by a signet-ring:450a30 4- yap ywvotirl Xivrl~os

Tov
KaOdrWrLp
ol L(ppayLSO(EvotL
roig SaKTvAlotL~,
also
EvarlalvETratL
otov TV7ov
rtval aLaOt7Lcar
,s the notionof mentalimage and the metaphorical
Both
450b16 carOrEp
r5roS~ ypagq
iv -'t1av.

Plato'sinfluence,
see R. Sorabji,Aristotle
on Memory
vocabulary
betray
(London,20032),5
n. 1; cf.R. McKeon,'Literary
Criticism
andtheConceptofImitation
in Antiquity',
in R. S.
Crane (ed.), Criticsand Criticism.:
Ancientand Modern(Chicago, 1952), 121-7.

33 Ifthesewerenotlikenesses,
wewouldnotbe ina position
torecollect
whichis
something
notpresent;
see Sorabji(n. 32), 7.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

442

STAVROS

TSITSIRIDIS

OS
object'simageis whatconstitutes
memory
(451b16:OTL pavd-oiiarog,(s EdKKOVO
conclusion
follows:
Aristotle
inthe
perceives
E"~s).Animportant
memory
~cvTraaa,
same
termsas he perceives
mimesis
invisualarts.
of an object'simageand its automatic
The preservation
recallaftera certain
amountoftime-thatis, memory-forms,
to Aristotle,
a psychicfaculty
according
from
thatofrecollection.
distinct
Anamnesis
inthecapacity
consists
torecover
conthe
mental
of
the
When
the
whole
comes
to
a
sucsciously
depictions
past.
process
cessfulend and theincomplete
is madecomplete,
one attainsmemory.
memory
Thisrecovery
ispossiblebecauseanamnesis
is a kindofmovement:
from
someoccurfororreconstructs
theaffinities
andis led
rence,evena slightone,thesoulsearches
therecovery
oftheknowledge,
towards
ormemory
thatexistsin a latent
sensation,
Itis true,
thesoul.34
ofcourse,
thatrecollection
is basedontheassociative
statewithin
interconnection
ofideas;nevertheless
itpresupposes
theconsciousness
oftimepast,
thetemporal
localization
ofthepersonorobjectremembered,
andtherecognition
of
therecreated
is an
image.As a consciousprocessandintentional
quest,recollection
ofman.35
exclusive
characteristic
Aristotle
notonlystresses
thisfeature
emphatically,
healsodrawsa parallel-ina passageofgreatimportance-between
and
recollection
a kindofsyllogism
(Mem.453a12):
a 6t
ov

EUTV
Tt
TO ava1vCL/tl7aKEuOaL
OL
tOV

6 7Ta'PKEL,qPuEL
atIvotg
/0VAEEUVTK6o

yO

KaL
CJUrV//lE'KEV-

EJSEV ) 7KOVUEV7) TL

7ITp'TEpOV
TO
trT. TOo 6S'
ri7Tair
'cav
oOv
TO30ov0AE6EUrOL uVAAoyLuFL'r
yatp
r01Kar. rr rEtTTv.

UVAAOyUJOrya69
rt" rt

Kal
G, avAAoyIErato
rotoTroVnaOEI
'valipvi)aK6/LEvor,

Boththephrasing
tenorofthispassage(par(oJov
ovAAoytcr6C
rtrc)andthegeneral
the
to
it
clear
is not
reference
the
make
that ovAAoytcprs,
ticularly
fPovAEvUtK6v),
usedherein thenarrow
senseof theterm.36
consistsin a search,which
Syllogism
theinference
of an initialconclusionex effectu
has as its pointof departure
ad
causam.Fromthispointofviewthefrequent
use of pr/Ikw
and 5T7qus, in thispart
Thisnotion
ofrecollection
as searchandunderstanding
ofthework,arenoteworthy.37
of
reminiscent
ofthePlatonic
Aristotle
doesnot
is strongly
concept
though
avctvrlvatJ, the
initsentirety.38
factis
Inanycase, important
theory
accept,ofcourse,histeacher
Mem.451b3:AA'oTavy
06
7V a7 O
")v 0Tpirepov
ELXEI
avaAatLg3avE7TLAT7rLv
7V
?tCyNoV,7 IorT
EUTLKalTOTET
Oat TV
Tt.
TAYo/1EV
tkV7lUkV,
oava/.LIV?7)KE(Ta
ror'T
EPqpE`VC0WV
ToAKOLtvavWd,
An.1.1.1488b25:
35 Cf.Hist.
Kal
'LV77/LrLEV Kat6&S6ax7-)
avaft/Lv41aKEala6'
34

EetV

o'6Sv 'AAo Uvarat 7rirv vOpworog.

36 J.I. Beare,
TheParvaNaturalia
3 [Oxford,
1908]),adloc.)renders
(TheWorks
ofAristotle

intheprocess
andexplains:
'Theonlydeductive
factor
isthe
with
theword
theterm
'inference',
orbecapable
ofbeing
that
suchqpavraajLa
must
havea cause(viz.an"experience")
major,
every

for.Thisstarts
theprocessof
WhilethegoAEvaLs
endsbyfinding
outthe
accounted
7qT7aLsr. in itsrelation
W. D.
to pastexperience'.
endsbyplacingthe
wayto act,
qpivraata
avlv-~Ves
theterm
ad 453a9-14,attempts
to interpret
ParvaNaturalia(Oxford,
Ross,Aristotle:
1935),
thata cpcivaafkain one's mindmusthavea
'One has a generalimpression
morenarrowly:
cause in previousexperience
(minor
(majorpremiss).One is awareof a presentpaivraupLa
thatthisqpxvraTaua
musthavea causeinprevious
Onetherefore
concludes
experience.
premiss).
But Ross's
On thisfollowsthe,~q7)UtL forthecause,which 7T7)oULleadsto recollection.'

I agreewithP. Siwek(Aristotelis
ParvaNaturalia
seemsto me pedantic.
interpretation
thattheterm
is notusedhereinitsliteral
sense,
[Romae1963],167n. 107)whobelieves
IndexAristotelicus
as is veryoften
thecaseinAristotle
but'in sensulatiore',
(cf.Bonitz,

s.v.711b48).
37 451b22(r/7TroL),b23(pC9
del.edd.),b30 (Ir/~7TrE),
452a8
('qrovrTIE), b28(rrpo7IqT/ouaS,
a25 (Tob~7Tro7V'evov).
a22
a23 (&rrqTEZ'),
453a12.15
(~rq7Tv),a16 (n'rm7TrCv),
(5TrI7qS),
(~r5EL),
38 Cf.especially
Meno81D4-5:
Toyapq7reTLV
apa KalT7
oavOaVELV avapVatgAov
EovUT . See
on
Anamnesis
beiPlato(Munich,1964),?206-13; J.Klein,A Commentary
also C. E. Huber,
imMenon,Europiische
Plato'sMeno(ChapelHill,1965),108-72; Sang-InLee,Anamnesis
Die Dichtung
als
R. XV, Bd. 83 (Frankfurt,
Hochsculschriften
2001), 147-59, B. Kyrkos,

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MIMESIS AND UNDERSTANDING

443

thatrecollection
is characterized
as a kindof syllogism,
andthatthissyllogism
is
identicalwiththeone we haveencountered
in chapter4 of thePoetics.Whatis

more, Aristotle,in the above-mentionedpassage fromthe Poetics, does not use

verbsthatindicateutterances(thatis,
and so on), or memory(that
KplVELV,
A,yEW,
intellectual
is, /vWfLYovEV"ELV,
activity
LEvIaOL, andso on),butonlyverbsdenoting
To summarize:in my opinion,Aristotleinterprets
(Gtav06vELv Kac avUvAAooyEUat).
the knowledgeand the subsequentpleasure derived frommimesis by proposing
thatthemimeticart is based on a cognitiveprocess whichis relatedto thefunction
Withthe featuresof the image
of memoryand especially to thatof recollection.39
depictedas his startingpoint,the spectatoris led, througha cognitiveprocess,to
identifythe said image with the actual object thatit represents.The spectatoris
guided fromthe featuresof the figure,as theyare representedin the image, and
withtheactualobject.In orderto illusthrougha cognitiveprocess,to identification
tratewhathe means,Aristotleuses themosttypicalexampleof recognition:
therechis face).40
ognitionof an individual(whichmeans,primarily,
The objectionone mightraise is thatin the Aristotelianexample of portraiture,
thereis no indicationthatany amountof time has elapsed, and thatconsequently
therecollectionprocessneedsto be activated.This is trueenough,in spiteoftheindirect indicationsthat,at least,some temporaldistanceis presupposed.I think,however,
thatAristotleis not interested
herein offering
distinctions
of thatkind--besides,he
does not even mentionthe relevantnotions.41Nor does anythingindicatethathe
had thoroughly
elaboratedon thetheoryof mimesisin relationto thatof recollection.
beiAristoteles
inreminding
us ofPlato'sdocWissensproblem
(Athens,
1972),106-7,is right
trineofanamnesis,
buthedoesnotinterpret
inmyopinion,
therelevant
ofthe
correctly,
chapter
that:'Ahnlichwie bei Platonder"verwunderte
deraus
Poetics,whenhe presumes
Anblick",
des Denkenszum"bewundernden
Schauen"derIdee des Sch6nen
Verlegenheit
anf'inglicher
wirdbei Aristoteles
das Anblicken
eines Nachgeahmten
fiihrt
(Phaidrosu. Symposion),
derWahrheit,
als pl6tzliche
des
Vision,als einAufblitzen
Erfassung
(1448b13),die intuitive
Wissens in der Art des Verstehensbzw. Wiedererkennens
(o'ro9 EKEvoS) verstanden'(104,
cf. 105 n. 4). It does not seem at all probablethatAristotleis using avAAoy?Eoat here to

denoteonlya 'pl6tzliche
Vision'.
39 In theparallelpassagefromtheRhetoric
the
(1.11.1371b4-10)mentioned
previously
samethought
is lurking,
albeitobfuscated
fora simplereason.In thewholerelevant
chapter,
forensic
thequestforpleasure
as aninducement
Aristotle,
discussing
speechesandconsidering
to commit
thatgivepleasure.One ofthethings
that
unjustacts,is simplyenumerating
things
cause pleasure,because of its connectionwithlearningand Oavy~LiEtv,
is mimesis.But it is

obviousthatwhatwe havehereis simply

a passingreference,
within
a context
ofnoparticular
relevanceto our subject;hence,it can be interpreted
Of greater
interest
is
independently.
Aristotle's
reference
to metaphor
in thethirdbookof theRhetoric
but
(3.10.1410bl10-20),
this would requirespecial discussion.Sufficeit to mentionhere A. Laks's article:
'Substitution
etconnaissance:
uneinterpretation
unitaire
aristotelici(ou presque)de la theorie
ennede la metaphore',
inD. J.Furley
andA. Nehamas(edd.),Aristotle's
Rhetoric
(Princeton,
ofMetaphor',
Glotta62
1994),283-305.P. Swiggers,
'Cognitive
AspectsofAristotle's
Theory
attheinteresting
conclusion
thatthecognitive
ofthemetaphor
(1984),40-5 arrives
background
is 'constituted
ofmimesis'
byAristotle's
theory
(43).
40 Aristotle's
reference
totherecognition
ofa personis perhaps
notaccidental.
SemirZeki,
an authority
incognitive
mentions
AnExploration
(inhisbookInnerVision.
neurology,
ofArt
andBrain[Oxford,
1999],ch. 17) thatthebraindoesnotonlyhavea specialareafortherecoffaces,butis characterized
there
existspecialsections
ognition
byevengreater
specialization:
ofthebrainwhichrecognize
ifthefaceis a familiar
one.He alsorefers
tothewell-known
conditionof 'prosopagnosia'.
41 1amnotsure,
thattheAristotelian
distinction
between
andrecollection
however,
memory
canbe appliedas easilyinreality
as intheory.
Forexample,
howcanoneexcludethepossibility
inthecourseofa mnemonic
recollection
is alsoactivated
withregard
toa particuthat,
process,
lardetail,orto a verylimited
degree?

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

444

STAVROS TSITSIRIDIS

He is merely
to show,in a verysimplemanner
andwithutmost
the
trying
brevity,
ofa cognitive
inmimesis.
element
presence
One shouldremember
herea familiar
scenefrom
thePlatonic
Phaedo.Socrates
is
toproveto Simmias
thatknowledge
is recollection.
As an exampleillustrating
trying
therecollection
heusesthehypothetical
ofhisinterlocutor
portrait
(73e9):
cp'6pootwv
if
'Is itpossible,
someone
have
could
seen
Simmias
asksSocrates,
'to
then,
depicted',
recollect(&vakvorlcq)vat)
the verysame Simmias?''This is absolutely
certain',
Simmiasanswers.
Aristotle
doesnotofcoursesubscribe
toPlato'sgeneral
conclusion
thenature
ofknowledge,
butitis noteworthy
thatPlatocharacterizes
the
concerning
ofhisinterlocutor
recognition
bya third
personbasedon hispictorial
representation
as 'recollection'
andnotas 'memory'.42
mention
shouldbe madeofthefactthat,inthePoeticspassageunderdisSpecial
Aristotle
thephenomenon
ofmimesis
lessfrom
thecreator's
cussion,
approaches
perHe indirectly
formulates
a very
spective,and morefromthatof the spectator.
in the
intellect
also participates
observation,
important
namelythatthespectator's
hardevento becomeawareof,let alone
processof mimesis.This is extremely
thisAristotelian
explain,butmodemreaderswillbe better
equippedto understand
if
in
to
two
Art
and Illusion,43
Gombrich's
book
concept theyturn
chapters Ernst
in
'The
the
Clouds'
and
'Conditions
of
Gombrich
refers
to
Illusion'.
namely
Image
thepsychological
function
ofthe'guidedprojection'
anddrawsthefollowing
conclusion:'The likenesswhichartcreatesexistsin ourimagination
only'(191). At
another
'Themindofthebeholder
alsohasitsshareintheimitation'
pointhestresses:
theexamples
heusesfrom
Gombrich
alsoquotesanextre(182).Apartfrom
painting,
from
Philostratus'
melyinteresting
passage
Lifeof Apolloniusof Tyana.In that
Philostratus
that
'the
art
of
mimesis
is presupposed
also forthosewho
says
passage
observethepaintings',
becausenobodycouldreallyappreciate
thepaintedhorseor
bulloradmirethepainted
Aias,ifhe couldnot'recallto mind'theirimage.44
One might,of course,wonderwhyAristotle
does notproceedto elaboratetotheviewshesetsoutinhisother
andall-embraaccording
works--amorecomplex
in
4. He could
of
the
of
described
chapter
cinginterpretation phenomenonrecognition
havementioned,
forexample,
imitated
isperceived
as
thatsince,inthiscase,thething
italsoconstitutes
a starting
beinga copyofanother
thing,
pointanda usefultool(see
Mem.450b27,451a2:
forthespectator
to beginhis searchin orderto
tiv7tyrvEv?a) the
thedepicted
recollect
theoriginal
doesnotcompare
object.Furthermore,spectator
in
derived
with
one
most
with
an
abstraction
mnemonic
but,
cases,
figure only
image,
from
from
thatis,withanimagethatresults
one,ormorethanone,mnemonic
images,
makesa pronounceHe couldalsohavepointedoutherethatthebeholder
E(?urEpla.
the
in otherwords,he interlaces
mentrelatedto theidentity
oftworepresentations,
Aristotle
had
after
'dislocated'
them.
This
combination
(as
representations having
a
and as we undoubtedly
alreadyestablished,
today)constitutes
acknowledge
in
inPhlb.34A-B.FortheAristotelian
notion
ofrecollection
thisdistinction
Platomakes
with
itsPlatonic
seeSorabji
(n.32),35-46.
comparison
counterpart
42
43

ArtandIllusion:A StudyinthePsychology
E. H. Gombrich,
ofPictorialRepresentation

(NewYork,19612).
Z
VA2.22(p. 66,5 Kayser):
EITOLV'
KaLTrob 6pvrag 7
~a - ypaotK'q Epya
0GEv
44 Philostr.
L71r )
fi-7To4Cpov
1ravpov
U7T7Trov
ptL/qTrLK7/
SEWOO 0o yapav EIaLVEUEE
aL.
&v -rv AtavTr4rTLrvyEypa(LoLEvv
3 5 'alivayiypamrrat
r7v TttoLudXOv
EvOvtFL'ELrtO,' ELKaaTraL, oi'
a.aaO[q5`,
Os
,EK0s aavrovTaEKTOVCLa
a M/o
prlqv74, ELtv7 ivahdlao-rtTVc v vovvA'aVTOEt"cAov Kat'

T-it

11v
Tpo' fov3K6ALa
KaOTOcLL

ct
7TELp-qKOTa,

TvaL.
fOgVoAi1ITOtOvEVOV Kat Eav7-l KVTE

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MIMESIS

AND UNDERSTANDING

445

theinference
'thispersonis thatone' is buta judgement
in themost
judgement:
term.45
sense
of
the
a
more
elaborate
not,
therefore,
Why
typical
interpretation?
The answerto thisquestionis, I believe,a simpleone.Aristotle's
mainconcern
a biological-anthropological
hereis to establish
ofthephenomenon
of
explanation
mimesis.This has an exact parallel in two otherAristotelian
works.The

Metaphysicsbegin, as has already been mentioned,with the remark: !TIVTEs

andwithwhatfollowsafterr
E2SivaLopEyoVrat
civOpwlTor
paL e. Withthisphrase,

oToo
is ranked,
after
hehasbeencompared
withtheotherlivingspecies,inthe
wards,man
scala naturae.
Itis furthermore
thatphilosophy
hasa biological-anthroemphasized
ofthePolitics:inthesecond
pologicalbasis.The samealso holdsforthebeginning
6
chapterof the firstbook, Aristotleputs forththe argumentthatovOpwos
ro(1pbaE
7TOALTLK6V

W4
ov (1253a2). In an identicalmanner,man is placed on the scale of the

animalkingdom
to hissocialbehaviour.46
Thisis notveryfarfrom
what
according
we suggestis Aristotle's
in thePoetics.Man is distinct
fromtheother
argument
animalsbecausehe is themostmimetic
of themall, andbecausehe learnsfrom
the earlieststagesof his lifethroughmimesis,a featurethatis innate(a;6vlPVrov).

If theaboveinterpretation
of theknowledge
connected
withmimesisand ofthe
relation
ofthiscognitive
is correct,
thenit is worthwhile
to
processto recollection
examinefurther
the moregeneralconsequences
of the Aristotelian
conception.
it followsthatAristotle
notonlyregardsthephenomenon
of mimesisas
Firstly,
characteristics
even
beinginnateto thehumankind,buthe also ascribescognitive
to thesimplest
formsof mimesis.He rejects,in otherwords,Plato'sviewson art,
notonlyas faras itsmostrefined
suchas tragedy,
are concerned,
achievements,
butalso withregardto all itsdifferent
and
the
genres at all itslevels.As a result,
idea ofdivineinspiration
hasno placein theAristotelian
of
art.
from
theory
Apart
theAristotelian
offer
a generalexplanation
forthequestion
that,however,
concepts
and givepleasureto all (7TcvraS),irrespective
whymimeticworksof artare attractive

oftheobjectofmimesis.
The explanation
doesnotapply,as is commonly
thought,
betweentherepresented
onlyto thedistinction
objectandtherealone. It applies
inessence,farfrom
mainlytotheveryelementary
(although,
simple)processofrecof
means
intellectual
of
the
content
of
mimesis.
Thiselementary
search,
ognition,
by
cognitiveprocess is, in otherwords,the one thatofferspleasure:i70t
tvOivEtLv ob
?6vov 70ro <(ptoa(o'pots qaurov LAAal
KaL TO,c?LAAOs
(1448b13, cf. Rh.
6olwso

3.10.1410b10).

Thenextquestion
ofthisconceptfortragedy?
In
be,whatis theimportance
might
4 is quiteobviousthattheemphasis
is giventothesimilarity
ofthemimema
chapter
withtheobjectofmimesis.
Thisis thebasisofall mimetic
arts.Tragedy,
ofcourse,
cannotbe an exception
to this,anditis forthisreasonthatlateron,in chapter14,
Aristotleformulates
an unequivocalprinciple:whenthe poet deals withwellknownmyths,
he is obligednotto deviateradicallyfromtraditional
stories(for
was assassinatedby Orestes,or Eriphyleby
example,that Clytemnestra
If someonebearsin mindwhathas beensaid in chapter
Alcmeon).47
4, theexplanationforthisruleis simple:thespectator
willnototherwise
recognizestructural
elementsof themythand,consequently,
thestorymightnotbe recognizable
or
45 Cf.De An.3.432a11.
See W. Kullmann,
'Aristoteles'
Staatslehre
aus heutiger
90 (1983),
Sicht',Gymnasium
459-63.
47 1453b23:706S oI
v v 7rapEt
%rpELAvov ~tb0OovAELvobK EUrTL, /~wo6O~ov 77v
l
arl O 0ITOLOEKUTOVKaL N'EptO.Aeqv
TOr70o a2Tov0
Khv-ratlt-arpav
0TroOavoav ta
'AApI'hO,,o(,
SE
Kt t rogi 7TapaWSE~O
See also Vahlen
(n. 2), 50.
KaA.
EbpiCrKELv
IEVOtLS
46

S.E

"

KptaOatL

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

446

STAVROS

TSITSIRIDIS

to Aristotle,
thepoethasathisdisposalthemeansto
persuasive
enough.According
orskilfully
handlethe'sufferings'
inthemyth
thathasbeenhanded
modify
depicted
How can thatbe achieved?Euripides'
down,in orderto makeit moreeffective.
ElectraandOrestesareverygoodexamples
ofwhatAristotle
hasinmind,especially
whichis mentioned
inthePoeticsas well.48
in thecase ofClytemnestra's
murder,
ofthepassageunderdiscusonequestion
remains:
thatoftherelationship
Finally,
first
of
where
Aristotle
refers
totheuniversality
sionwiththeimportant
9,
part chapter
ofpoetry
andto itssuperiority
overhistory
becauseoftheformer
beingmorephiloofcourse,venture
atthispointintoa moredetailedinterpretsophical.One cannot,
ninth
It is clear,however,
ationofthemuch-discussed
thatwhatis at stake
chapter.
inbothcasesis therelationship
between
mimesis
andknowledge,
sincebydefinition
the
refer
is
mimesis
and
can
to a certain
kind
poetry
description
pLAoaocpn-0pov only
to
two
ofknowledge.
has
led
several
connect
the
This,after
all,
interpreters
chapters.
aftertheabove
thedifferences
aresignificant
discernible
and,I trust,
Nonetheless,
of thePoetics,theinnatecharacter
of
analysisof chapter4. Near thebeginning
mimesisandtheaccompanying
processarediscussed.In the
elementary
cognitive
thatis, a 'mimesisof an
morecomplexis presupposed,
case of poetrysomething
means
is
and
modes,'speaksofuniversals'--as
action',which,byusingparticular
a moresuccessful
manner
ofthis
mostclearlystated--in
thanhistory.
Themeaning
but
be thefollowing:
sincepoetry
doesnotdescribeactualevents,
lastpointmight
theevents
thekindsof thingsthatmighthappen,it is capableof relating
rather
'in orderto openup foritsaudiencesthequasiwithin
theplotin a causalmanner
of
anddiscernment
thatit is capableofprovidscope comprehension
philosophical
to reflect
it
is
within
the
In
other
words,
spectator's
uponandto
ing'.49
possibility
in
to something
data.
On
the
lead himselfinductively
contrary,
beyondempirical
inchapter
whichis described
ofpainting
thesimpleandexactmimesis
4, theunivernoris inductive
sals arenotpresented,
thought
presupposed.
I wouldliketo endmydiscussion
Aristotelian
ofthisimportant
passagebymenin
to the
a
text
relevant
view
has
that
Umberto
Eco
an
expressed
tioning interesting
Poetics:
about
ourcognitive
convinced
that
Kanthassaidthemost
AsI amabsolutely
things
interesting
butinthe
hespeaks
aboutknowledge),
notintheCritique
ofPureReason(where
processes,
inthesameway,doesone
he seemstotalkaboutart),why,
(where
Critique
ofJudgement
butinthePoetics
not(only)intheAnalytics,
ofknowledge,
notlookfora modem
theory
andtheRhetoric
as well?50
to
we havebeentrying
thatEco didnothaveinmindtheproblem
Whileitis certain
oftruth.
examinehere,hiswordsmaycontaina fairamount
University
ofPatras

STAVROS TSITSIRIDIS
tsitsiridis@upatras.gr

48

durchEuripides(Athens,
des Mythos
See Th. K. Stephanopoulos,
1980),
Umgestaltung
esp.37-8 and 131-60 (on Orestes).
49 Halliwell(n. 3), 199.
50 U. Eco,'La Poeticae noi' in Sulla letteratura
(Milan,2002),273 (mytranslation).

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions